[antlr-interest] antlr suitable for xml languages? (like bpel and are there existing grammaires)

Sohail Somani sohail at taggedtype.net
Fri Dec 16 00:14:12 PST 2005


On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 10:08 +0100, Martin Probst wrote:
> > Quite honestly I am surprised Java libraries don't take more advantage
> > of its introspection abilities. 
> 
> Well, because reflection at least used to be really slow (it's better
> now afaik) and the Java way is static typing, not dynamic fiddling at
> runtime. These dynamic projects might be nice for the quick small
> project, but for really big stuff static typing and (more or less)
> rigorous structures are a pro.

I'm not going to turn this into a static vs dynamic typing issue, I'm
not :X!

I agree that it would probably not be all that useful for larger
projects. I just don't think that traditional XML parsers should be
allowed to live anymore :)

> > A library like this allows you to basically define the DTD in code as
> > well as giving you a set of "strongly typed" classes that you can use to
> > manipulate the XML (all with one declaration of course).
> 
> Well, you can do that at compile time with tools like XML Beans in Java.
> Why would you want to do something like that at runtime?

I will do some research on this. Thanks! Although thedailywtf.com tells
me Beans in Java go well with Access databases linked through Word
documents (or something like that).

Sohail



More information about the antlr-interest mailing list